Stephen Fry Discusses the Language of Nazi Germany

I just saw this short video about language and how it can be used to coerce people into committing horrible atrocities.  It's true that language is a powerful force, and while we should be free to speak, we should also remain aware of the power of the words we use.  The old saying that "words will never hurt me" is simply not true.

Also, I think Stephen Fry is a brilliant human being.  I just had to say that.

Darn Those Dichotomies!

I don't know why, but I've been thinking about this world and feeling increasingly discouraged by our prospects.  It isn't entirely based on language, but there's a linguistic component to this post, so please indulge me in this.

Humans naturally classify things.  By lumping people or ideas into nice little groups, we enable our own understanding of our world.  This tendency can, however, hinder our understanding if we aren't careful.

There is a broad spectrum of political views.  There is a broad spectrum of belief systems.  There is a wide variety of just about any social grouping or affiliation that you can think of.  The world isn't typically black and white, though people seem to see it that way more often than not.

Our own language structure makes this tendency quite clear.  You have positive and negative statements: "American vs. non-American", "Christian vs. non-Christian", "believer vs. nonbeliever", "white vs. non-white", "heterosexual vs. non-heterosexual", etc.  There are countless examples.  It seems like we're geared to split everything into splitting things into two simple groups.  


At the end of the day, this tendency leaves us with the "us vs. them" mentality.  Human beings are always talking about the battle of light vs. dark, or good vs. evil.  If we believe that we're right and that we're fighting for what's good, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the people we see as "them" must be fighting for evil.


Perhaps this sounds a bit extreme.  We don't always see the people who oppose us as doing or advocating for evil things, though I've seen plenty of people in the news making such extreme claims lately.  And even if you don't see the people who think differently than you as evil or just plain bad, you still may see them as a threat.    


The impulse to create dichotomies runs very deep in us.  I'm sure many of you can think of examples I haven't even mentioned here.


In the days when humanity was much less advanced and lived in smaller groups, outsiders were typically perceived as a threat.  We survived because we trusted those who were like us, while we fought off those who weren't.  Survival required an "us   Though this is no longer quite the case (we still fight plenty of wars, I'll admit), we still tend to think of the people who aren't with us as being against us.


We're split into two sexes, male and female.  This may explain a little bit about why we tend to lump things into two groups.  It's deeply ingrained in our psychology.  The world has been run in two separate spheres, public vs. private (namely the home), for much of human history.  For a long time, people operated in each sphere within specific roles based on sex.  This is still the case in many instances.


For better or worse, these dichotomies aren't going away.  All I can do is make a simple plea.  Maybe we need to reexamine the "us vs. them" mentality.  There are situations where it's still appropriate, certainly.  Unfortunately, even in civil society, we have decidedly uncivilized encounters on a daily basis because people can't listen to one another.  We hold dearly to our beliefs and lash out at those who disagree.  Instead of talking and trying to be rational in our encounters, we degenerate to name-calling.  Politics gets uglier all the time. 


Lately I've read articles that weren't even about politics (at least not overtly), and people from the left and right start hurling insults at one another for no discernible reason.  It makes me wonder how we'll ever resolve anything.


I'm disgusted.  If only we had a strong third party.  The two party system (darn that dichotomy as well!) isn't working for me anymore.  We need more options.  If the two existing parties are too mired down in their own ideologies to listen, they don't deserve to lead us.


This is just my opinion, of course.

Word Games in the World

The world is full of word games.  Even our lives in the world can be one big word game.  Though we may have the 1st Amendment and are technically free to speak, there are all kinds of societal rules governing what is appropriate and inappropriate for any given situation.

Political correctness, which is a societal judgment of which words are appropriate to use to describe people, professions, or things, has been a divisive issue.  Should we make an effort not to offend  people when we speak, or have these restrictions trampled our rights of free speech?  This is a question you have to answer for yourself.  For me personally, I have no problem with sexist, racist, and other terms used to demean people being frowned upon.  You're technically still free to say them, as you should be, but the shift has made some areas of civil discourse more, well, civilized.  Of course, from the way the political arena looks as of late, people are still bashing each other just as thoroughly as ever.  Politicians are adept at using word play, a type of word game, to spin the argument against their opponent and paint themselves in a more favorable light.  Gotta love rhetoric.  I discussed this once in a previous post, so I won't go into too much detail about that here.

I can think of a couple high profile examples of language controversy.  Less than a month ago, actress Gwyneth Paltrow stirred up controversy when she tweeted a picture of Kanye West, Jay-Z, and herself.  In her description, she used the "N" word.  I don't think I need to spell it out for all of you to know what I mean by that.  And as much as I enjoy controversy, I don't want to be accused of being racist.  I will, however, offer my take on the situation.  She was tweeting the name of the song that they were singing at the time.  Saying a word offensively is one thing.  However, since she was quoting the name of the song, why should anyone be angry?  The use of these offensive terms is generally accepted in music and novels.  After all, it can often be used as political commentary, and is also used as a form of empowerment.  As for novels, how can you write a historical piece focused on racism in America without using such a term?  It would certainly be difficult.  I think we sometimes need to look at the intended meaning behind the use of a typically offensive word before we get angry.


Then, even more recently, Michigan Representative Lisa Brown was silenced after saying the dreaded "V" word, which is the clinical term for a part of the female body, during an abortion debate.   Apparently using the name of a body part offended several people in the assembly, though I'm kind of stunned as to why.  Well, I'm actually not stunned.  It's a body part that can be used for sexual purposes, so I guess it's considered "offensive by association."  Now, I'm not going to go into her subsequent actions and whether they were appropriate or not (that is a whole new can of worms and would dominate the rest of this post).  You can read more HERE and decide for yourselves.  However, I will say this.  She said the actual name of a body part that half the people in this country have.  I can think of several slang terms she could have used that would have been far more inflammatory and would have justified action against her.  However, she used the clinical term of a body part that is inevitably involved in an abortion debate.  Maybe people need to get over it.  It's a word we had to say aloud in a high school anatomy class, for crying out loud.  These were full grown adults who were complaining.  Something seems off there.  And I know I didn't write out the "V" word either, which makes me seem hypocritical, but I think the absurdity of me not saying it helps me make my point.


Anyway, the point I'm trying to make in all this ranting is that language comes with all sorts of rules, both written and unwritten.  Language belongs to society and is constantly under construction.  It's political, it's tricky, and malleable.  Anyone who understands it well enough can use it to make any point they want.  It's all about the words you use.  The world is one large word game.


I want to say now that I never intended to offend anyone with the content of this long rant.  I was trying to make some serious points and offer my own opinions.  Think what you will of what I believe.  For any of you who I may have offended and still decided to stick with it this far, or for any of you who simply love word games, here's a little fun for you.  Follow the links to play some free, and fun, word games.  These sites have a ton to choose from.  Or just do your own search for "word games."  If you can't find anything to your liking from that long list of results, well, then I certainly can't help you.


http://www.wordgames.com/
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/games/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/game/index.htm

Have a good day everyone!

The Sting of Satire

I decided to briefly touch upon a wonderful outlet that allows us, through words, to really examine, and in some cases, severely criticize the world around us.  I am, of course, talking about satire.

Satire is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn" and "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly."  It works by bringing to light terrible realities in the world.  It can function by turning a popular argument around to support the opposite side in an effort to expose the absurdity of the original argument.  In many cases, it works by shocking the reader.  Through that shock, the piece may truly deliver its message.


To see a blog devoted to satire, visit Satirical Blog.


A famous example of satire is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."  You can find the full version of this particular work HERE.  In this piece, Swift proposes to solve the issue of poverty by taking the poor children who would only be a burden on society and have them sold to make for a good meal.  

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."

Appalling as this sounds, the precise point of such a piece is to be appalling.  It draws attention to the issues a society faces, and in cases like this, takes issue with the blatant disregard with which certain classes in a society treat those below them in the socioeconomic strata.

To see another excellent example of satire that, being more recently written, deals with an issue that we are currently dealing with as a society, go HERE.  This piece takes the anti-gay rhetoric we've been hearing of late and turns it on its head.  It not only does so skillfully, but the fact that this was written for a class by a young student makes the work even more remarkable.

And to end this little foray into satire, I'll leave you with this video.  It is composed of interviews done with prominent comedians who specialize in satire.  They may occasionally cross the line and offend, but that's part of the territory.

Friday Funnies: Political and Otherwise

May I share something funny?


First, I thought I'd like to share a few funny quotes.  As a writer, I'm all about quotes.

The first is from the movie The Lost Boys.  The last line in the movie, it comes from the grandfather, and it painted the rest of the film in a whole new light for me.

"One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach, all the damn vampires."


This is something worth mentioning before your daughter and grandchildren come to stay with you, but then again, if you have a mild rat infestation, you might not say anything.  Maybe it really was nothing more than a nuisance.

It's always nice when people can be honest about themselves, even writers.  We aren't all ego maniacs, though I'm not sure which category I fall into yet.

"I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries" -Stephen King (he's still making lots of money, so there's no need to complain, at least)


"My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was sixty. She's ninety-seven now, and we don't know where the hell she is." -Ellen DeGeneres

Now, here's a quote from a man who was a wonderful writer, and it may be funny to writers.  Personally I find it funny and disconcertingly true.

"Writing is easy.  You only need to stare at a blank paper until your forehead bleeds." -Douglas Adams

Now, here is one that is funny, but also exemplifies how politicians do their jobs.

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain


In all fairness, politics is often funny even when it doesn't intend to be.  Comedians often just point out what was already funny to begin with.  This clip from The Daily Show is no different.  No matter what your political or personal views about same-sex marriage are, Jon Stewart makes some good points in this clip.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Santorum vs. Pornography: An Epic Battle

As if freedom weren’t in enough danger already, the threats just keep on coming.  Like it or hate it,hardcore pornography will be under attack if presidential hopeful Rick Santorum makes it to the White House.  He has vowed to enforce obscenity laws that would prohibit hardcore pornography from being distributed online, in stores, through the mail, etc.  The man who keeps talking about the importance of economic freedom is promising to shut down a multi-billion dollar industry that contributes countless tax dollars to the government every year, and whose sales “stimulate” the economy, so to speak.

He argues that pornography denigrates women, leads to violence against women, and weakens marriages.  First off, most women in the porn industry choose to be there for various reasons.  As legal adults, it should be their right to make that choice.  Second, the violence against women he talks about is already illegal, and not all studies conclude that it influences men to behave violently toward women.  If anything, it does men a great disservice to assume that watching pornography changes men so much that they can no longer control themselves.   And third, if pornography supposedly destroys your marriage, I assume there were probably underlying issues.   In that case, it is likely a symptom of a problem rather than being the actual problem.

My attitude toward so-called obscene material is this: If you don’t like it, then don’t watch it.  Regulating porn to keep it away from children is one thing.  Outlawing it altogether is going way too far.

One thing that worries me is the lack of clarity when material is defined as “hardcore.”  And knowing Santorum, he'll take it as far as he can.  If such a ban went too far, we could be looking at a bold new era of banned books, which, by the way, was a reality only a few decades ago.  Barney Rosset, who passed away this past February, fought for the freedom to publish and distribute books that were illegal due the obscenity laws of the day.  Though Santorum signed a pledge awhile back that called for him to fight against pornography, among other things, it seems interesting that he reiterates such a hard-lined position right after such a prominent crusader for the freedom of the press died.  Hmmm . . .  Coincidence, maybe, but it still seems a bit much.

As a writer, I can’t trust someone who wants to thoroughly control what you can watch.  If the obscenity laws are once again believed to apply to written materials, it could potentially affect me, along with many others.  We shouldn’t look at this as just being about porn, because that’s only scratching the surface.

No politician should have that much control over what we view in our own homes.  Or write.  Or say.  If you despise pornography but love the first amendment, this should still disturb you.

Rape Victim Commits Suicide

I wanted to share this story with others who may not have heard about it yet, though the news has spread quickly.  A sixteen year old Moroccan girl named Amina El-Filali  was made to marry her rapist.  The rapist used an old provision in Moroccan law to escape jail time by marrying her, and her family agreed to allow it.  Being raped is a mark of dishonor to the family, which likely influenced their decision to allow it.  After being married to her rapist for six months, she killed herself by drinking rat poison.

Luckily Morocco is taking action and has vowed to amend the law that allowed this to happen.  It's too late to save Amina, but hopefully it will spare many others.

I'm writing this because victims forced into such abhorrent arrangements need someone to speak for them.  If enough people had spoken out on her behalf before the marriage, this young girl would still be alive.  Being raped must be horrible enough, but to be forced to spend the rest of your life with someone who has such blatant disregard for you as a human being is beyond unthinkable.

Ladies, don't take your rights for granted.  Those of us who are free should appreciate what we have and speak out for those who are not so fortunate.  

Hold On . . .The Impossible Has Happened

Wow.  The world is certainly changing every day, but this one caught me off guard.  In reading something Pat Robertson had to say, I found myself agreeing with him.

Whew!  The world might actually end this year.  My issues with Pat Robertson stem primarily from the harsh extremism of his rhetoric and his ability to blame gay people for almost everything that goes wrong in our society.  At least he isn't nearly as bad as Fred Phelps.  The day I agree with Phelps on anything is the day I give up on life.

Although, come to think of it, Robertson has been softening up a little over the last few months.  And so here is the first thing I agree with him on.  The Republican presidential candidates are talking a bit too extreme, though I'm sure he has different reasons for thinking that than me.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Maybe it's old age, or maybe he's just realizing that he may be a bit too much for most people to take. Now, that being said, here comes the second thing I agree with him on. Pat Robertson is saying that the legalization of marijuana may help break the cycle of incarceration that has been blamed in destroying many young lives.

I won't say that legalizing pot will solve all problems, and may well create new ones we haven't thought of.  If it had never been criminalized in the first place, we probably wouldn't have the huge war on drugs that we have now.  Now, this is just an opinion, but seeing the rise of designer drugs that can be made out of easily purchased household products does support my point.

As for Robertson, I'm not sure why one kind of perceived "immorality" is okay to be legal and not the others he rails against, but you know what?  Personal opinion, while benefiting from the use of reason, doesn't necessarily have to correspond with reason.

One might argue that in order to avoid prison, the consequence in indulging in the illegal behavior, one should  not indulge in said illegal behavior to begin with.  That is a valid point, but I don't think touting the adage of personal responsibility is going to put a dent in a problem this large.  We have too many people in prison.  A lot of this comes from drug related crime.

And yes, I understand that a lot of drug addicts commit a good number of crimes in an effort to get their drugs, and even if legalized, jobs probably don't want to hire employees who come to work stoned.  Therefore, unemployed addicts may still steal to support their habit.

At this point, there is no easy solution, but it's an issue worth thinking about.

The Power of Words: The Rush Limbaugh Edition

Lately I’ve been angry about something, and it feels good to finally be getting it out there.  This has nothing to do with my writing, but it does deal with words and the power they hold.  I’m sure we’ve all heard by now how Rush Limbaugh spent three days on his radio show talking about Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress.  She made the point that the pill can potentially be expensive for someone in college, and that the pill is often used to treat a medical condition.  These things are true.  Are there cheap off brand versions available?  Yes, of course.  Then again, your doctor decides on your prescription, and some of the off brands don’t work for everyone.  If you’re one of these women, costs can add up.  That being said, should insurance companies be mandated to pay for these prescriptions in their entirety?  This is the question we should be focusing on.  Instead, this issue has turned into a mudslinging match of the worst kind.

Now, as a writer, I’m glad that we have freedom of speech.  It’s a wonderful thing, and every time I hear about people wanting to impose limitations on that freedom, I get very nervous.  If we lose that right, we may as well give up everything else as far as I’m concerned.  You can’t have real freedom if you can’t express yourself.  And when Rush Limbaugh made his comments about Sandra Fluke, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” he was certainly exercising his right to free speech.  You’ll never catch me disputing that.  Does that make what he said right?  No.

Let me explain my position.  I never subscribed to the saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”  That’s complete crap.  Bullies say horrible things precisely because they hurt.  The best we can do is not let the mean-spirited words of others get under our skin, which is much easier said than done.  I know this all too well.  The bullying I endured as a kid helped shape me into the person I am today.

So I can say this with confidence.  Words are powerful.  They can persuade, inspire, create, and destroy.  “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  This is a saying I can get behind, except, of course, someone’s actually making fun of me from the corner of a room while someone’s impaling me with a sword.  That is one instance where I may be inclined to change my position on this.

Rush used the words he did because he knew they were laced with powerful meaning.  He knew they would get a reaction.  I’m sure he said what he did to be funny, and many people did find it funny.  I won’t dispute that either.  However, his choice of words angered many, including me, because it suggested a belief that many no longer find acceptable:  if a woman is sexually active, it’s okay to call her a slut.  It’s not, in my humble opinion.  He even suggested that he’d pay to give girls aspirin to put between their knees.   Yes, sex is something that should be handled with careful consideration, but let’s not pretend that having sex immediately invalidates her right to be treated with dignity and respect.   Women shouldn’t be denigrated over their sexual choices, especially if men won’t be. 

A definite misstep was his calculation of how much sex Sandra must have been having to spend $3000 in three years of school.  First of all, she said it could cost that much, not that it did for her personally.  Second, we’re talking about the birth control pill. I never thought I’d have to take the time to say this, but you take one pill a day.  The cost is the same no matter how many times you have sex over that three year period.  While reading the comments sections of articles dealing with this issue, I was stunned by how many people didn’t seem to know this.  Third, he said that the taxpayers would be her pimps for paying her to have sex.  Tax dollars wouldn’t cover the cost of contraception.  Insurance companies would.  If anything, insurance premiums would go up, and I've even heard just as many people saying that they'd actually go down due to the decrease in unwanted pregnancies.  I don’t know how it would all work because I’m not an expert at these things, nor am I a fortune teller.  However, if we’re going to have the conversation, I’d at least like to get it right about what's actually at stake.

What Limbaugh did in using this language, besides hurting Fluke’s feelings, is distract us from the issue at hand.  There are a lot of valid questions to be asked, but they’re not really being asked or answered because of the controversy that sprung forth from this.  In an article entitled “Pills For Sluts?: Sixquestions for Rush Limbaugh about sex,promiscuity, and contraception,” William Saletan talks about some of the questions Limbaugh has raised, whether advertently or inadvertently, and should discuss.

1.What’s the problem with contraceptive insurance: socialism or promiscuity?

2. How much sex is too much? 

3. Is contraception a sex enabler?

4. What consequences should a woman face for having sex?

5. Is pregnancy prevention a legitimate medical need?

6. What responsibility should men bear?

These are good questions, and I recommend you read his article to hear what he has to say about them.  There is also, of course, the question that brought this about in the first place.  Does requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception infringe on religious liberty.

I’m all for having a good, honest debate about these issues, and I want to know people’s thoughts on these questions.  However, the way that Rush handled it in no way promoted civil discourse.  Of course, that wasn’t his intention.  He’s an entertainer, and as such, we have to expect this from him.  However, he also bears a responsibility in choosing his words.  People turn to him for information as well, so while he’ll undoubtedly put his spin on it according to his personal opinion, as he is free to do, responsibility also indicates he should at least be factual in the information he provides.  He’s doing more than entertaining, after all.

Now, do I believe he should be fired for what he said?  No.  His words may have been irresponsible, or merely poorly chosen, but he is free to say these things whether we like it or not.  That’s the beauty of America.  At the same time, he is representing his employer, so they are free to fire him if they want to.  Just as his advertisers are free to keep walking away if they want.  The advertisers who have walked away understand the power of his words as well as anyone, and they don’t want the beliefs reflected in those words to cast a bad light on them.  Rush and other people like him have to be prepared for this kind of reaction, because that’s the responsibility that comes along with his word choices.

Now, he’s since apologized for his words.  Is he sincere?  Or is he bowing to the pressure?  The fact that he went on a three day long rant before backing down suggests an answer, but who knows?  He may actually mean it.  As an entertainer, he pushes the envelope further because he needs to hold an audience.  Sincere or not, he still has to live with the consequences of what he said.

I only hope this mess settles down so we can answer the important questions that have been raised.  We need debate.  We need solutions.  As much fun as it’s been arguing over whether Rush went to far, let’s focus now on what actually matters.

The Fun and Functional Role of Science Fiction

I’m writing this because I’m having a difficult time getting through a scene in the story I’ve been working on.  Maybe the process of writing something else will keep my mind moving in the right direction.  And if it doesn’t, oh well.  At least I’ll have done something else I pledged to do in the meantime.

As I know I’ve mentioned before, I write mostly science fiction.  I do this because, as a genre, it offers the most exciting possibilities for me as a writer.  I can place my story wherever and whenever I want.  I have the freedom to create any world I want, and through character interactions with that world, the plot unfolds, entertaining me as well as my audience.  Granted, my audience is small at this point, but I can only take it one step at a time.

Now, many people aren’t willing to give science fiction a chance.  I’ve heard people say that it’s stupid because it doesn’t deal with real people or real problems.  That simply isn’t true.  The opportunity to use a fresh environment with characters developed in the context of that environment enables me to take problems I’ve seen in the world, which often inspire me to write in the first place, and get a new perspective on them.  When I analyze an issue through the eyes of a character I’ve co-created with the world I placed them in, I often find angles of the issue that I hadn’t previously considered.

And, I admit, science fiction is also fun for me.  I don’t see a point in writing something that I wouldn’t enjoy.  Life is too short for that.

Currently, my writing is inspired by the real-world environment of political extremism I’ve been seeing lately.  With the political arena heating up with angry rhetoric, it seems to me that politicians are spending half of their time painting themselves as the opposite of the other side.  I fear that we’re getting away, at least in some cases, from the real issues as we get more mired in the political blame game.  That extremism and anger is what inspired me to write this current story, which is set in a future where both political extremes have become so angry and powerful that they’ve literally destroyed America by splitting the country into halves, which are separated by a neutral buffer zone.

I’m not writing this because I believe such a thing will happen, but instead because I want to speculate about what each extreme would look like, and how that kind of world would adversely impact people.  It seems to me that unbridled extremism can be a very dangerous thing.  In a world like ours where everything is so uncertain, I think these kinds of speculations are a good thing.

Thoughts on Politics and the Power of Words

As I sit here, tracking the results of the New Hampshire Republican primary, I can’t help but meditate on the power of words.  I live in Iowa as well, so the caucuses of a week ago are also fresh in my mind.  As a registered Independent and obstinate person who cannot agree enough with either side to affiliate myself entirely with one or the other, I find myself in a great position.  I don't have worry about the pressure to adopt the rhetoric of any party.  I have the freedom to pick and choose.  However, I won’t claim to be immune to the rhetoric flying around.  Let’s face it, even the most intelligent, savvy people find themselves susceptible to it from time to time. 

The speeches, constructed from carefully selected, emotionally charged words, are a crucial part of one of the longest, most expensive, and grueling job application processes in the world.  Yes, we can look at a candidate’s prior record to get an idea of who they are and what they believe in, but let’s be honest.  While many politically active people care enough to put in the time and energy to conduct this kind of research, most citizens make their decision based solely upon a candidate’s performance in a debate or a speech that they found particularly moving.  Words can be crafted to paint any facts in a new light, or to obscure inconvenient, potentially damaging, truths.  That is the nature of politics, and whether we like it or not, language itself can be very political at times.

I say this because I have strong feelings about the state of politics these days.  What can I say?  The division in this country seems to be larger than ever, and I find myself inexorably trapped in the middle of two diametrically opposed sides.  As the two drift further away from one another, driven by animosity and fervent belief in party dogma, we see that division portrayed through bitter words.  Issues, framed through carefully coined terms such as “pro life” vs. “pro choice,” illustrate with clarity what each side believes is at stake.  And as political attitudes evolve, we can see how the evolution of the rhetoric has directed it.  After all, in a nation where people are looking for a way out of economic difficulty, we’re seeing the word “moderate” devolve into a nasty word, at least as far as the GOP is concerned.  Even putting  my own political beliefs aside, I can’t help but find this fascinating, and terrifying, at the same time.  Words can be a wonderful beacon of civilization.  They can be art.  They are capable of portraying, and perpetrating, the best and worst that humanity has ever known.  It’s all in the hands and motivations of those who wield those words.

As a writer, I can’t deny that I live in awe of that power, and I hope that I can do well with it.  I want to live up to the responsibility that comes along with language.  And I also hope that people read, and watch, the world around them with a critical eye.  Sometimes you should allow language to move you, because being swept away by beautiful words can be a wonderful thing.  Yet, in the public arena, we need to be careful, because that kind of unquestioning submission can be extremely dangerous.